Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2026

Abstract

When a Michigan trial court determined that terminating Eric Dai- ley’s parental rights to his young son, D.D., was in the child’s best inter- ests, it described the decision as “extremely tragic.” The court acknowl- edged that D.D. loved his father and saw him every day. It recognized that Mr. Dailey had been consistent in visiting and supporting D.D., that they maintained a strong bond together, and that D.D. “should be able to have some continued contact” with his father. Yet, the court still chose to end that relationship permanently, finding that termination of Mr. Dai- ley’s parental rights served D.D.’s best interests.

In its ruling, the court did not claim that D.D. was unsafe or lacked stability. To the contrary, the child had lived his entire life in the safe and loving care of his maternal grandmother. Nor did the court suggest that Mr. Dailey was unwilling to parent his child. Rather, it pointed to his continued struggles with addiction—a condition the court explicitly labeled an illness—and concluded that the need for “finality” outweighed the value of preserving the father-son relationship. The possibility of a guardianship arrangement with the grandmother, one that could have ensured both safety and stability, was not explored in any depth. The trial court, in making the best-interest determination, never asked whether stability could be achieved without termination. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the decision that termination was in D.D.’s best interest, which the Michigan Supreme Court refused to reverse.

Comments

© 2026 Hofstra Law Review. Reproduced with permission.

Download


Included in

Family Law Commons

Share

COinS